Shofar FTP Archive File: people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0792

Archive/File: orgs/american/oregon/banished.cpu gannon.0708
Message #2421 - History (Received)
Date: 07-08-92 05:44
From: Jamie
To: Maynard
Subject: The Holocaust
Replies: -> #2495
Over in area 1, Maynard writes:
> I'm only going to respond to this right now. You say "Over and over and
> over...", which implies that messages were posted 4 (four) or more times
> each. Which ones were those? I don't recall seeing anything reposted that
> many times.
(sigh) No, I don't have a complete record of the newsgroups in question for
the last year. I was specifically thinking of the $50,000 "offer," which was
posted many times. I can't prove that it was posted 4 (four) or more times,
as you literal-mindedly infer, but I'd be willing to wager that it was.
Perhaps others can provide proof; I don't know and I don't care.
> In a couple other cases, a message was reposted in
> direct response to attempts to misrepresent what the article stated in
> the first place
The usual method of doing that is to quote what you're replying to, typically
with angle brackets as I'm doing, and to respond to only the point to which
you wish to respond. The B-CPU method of doing that was to repost the entire
original article. Go figure.
> I'm skeptical, but perhaps you didn't do the misquoting. Perhaps you got
> that message in already-misquoted form.
Gee, it must be the Zionist conspiracy reaching into the phone lines and
creatively editing your messages, huh? They've probably tapped your house,
and for all you know they're making anti-Semitic prank calls to Zimbabwe under
your name at this very moment!
Yeah, and perhaps the moon is made of green cheese. How long are you going to
try to worm your way out of what you said?
> JJ> Your claim is that not making thousands of computer
> JJ> operators around the world pay to distribute your propaganda
> JJ> is censorship. That's ludicrous.
>
> False. What makes it censorship most of all is the illegal and unethical
> tactics which were used to get this system cut off from USENET.
First of all, what was illegal about your getting cut off? Sorry, I must have
missed that part. (I know what you're claiming Alan did, you don't have to
repeat that.)
JJ> Your claim is that not making thousands of computer
JJ> operators around the world pay to distribute your propaganda
JJ> is censorship.
>
> You've misstated what my "claim" is, also.
I don't think so. Please try to convince me otherwise. State your claim
again, keeping in mind that the systems which were receiving your propaganda
were paying for it.
> I don't have to like all cultures and their ways though.
So is Zionism a "culture" now? I thought it was a political movement. Or are
you referring to the Jewish culture? But you just said you didn't pre-judge
Jews! (Go ahead, worm your way out of it by saying "I just said I didn't
_have_to_ like them, not that I _didn't_ like them.")
> By the way, how do you define "ethnic"?
Irrelevant. I'll retract "ethnic prejudice" and replace it with either
"prejudice against Jews" or "bias against Jews," if you like.
> JJ> And my interest in the Holocaust
> JJ> was essentially nonexistant until I read your lies several months ago.
>
> I'm calling you on this. WHAT lies?? Be specific now.
Here we come to the major problem that one encounters when one begins to
refute the Multiple Untruth.
Some of the lies to which I refer are: that the Jews in extermination camps
were not intentionally killed; that a B-CPU user would give $50,000 to anyone
who fulfilled certain criteria; that Hitler did not know of the mass
extermination; that Zyklon-B was explosive; that Zyklon-B was too
inefficient to kill people; that Zyklon-B was too poisonous for the Germans
to use; that human bodies cannot be consumed in fires in open pits; that
Anne Frank's diary is a hoax; and so on.
Individual points are fairly easily refuted. But their proponents (such as
yourself) will go on to argue trifling little points long after everyone else
agrees they're been beaten into the ground. I say "German courts, the
Encyclopedia Brittanica, and detailed studies prove that Anne's diary is
legitimate." You say, "Zionist propaganda. Kick Big Brother in the balls.
Dr. Faurisson proved that page 42 is in someone else's handwriting." I say,
"Faurisson is a bigot discredited by everyone from here to Timbuktu." You
say, "Because he dares to speak the truth. Strike a blow for freedom."
Or we dispute the authenticity of a Nazi document. And on and on we go.
All I can do, and all I hope to do, is to demonstrate conclusively that a
large number of these lies are lies. I won't be able to get to them all,
because there have been hundreds of people working for decades to make up new
ones. And I won't be able to chase them all down with replies to replies to
replies to replies, because I don't have 24 hours a day to do this.
But I believe I'll be able to point out _why_ a lot of these lies are lies,
even if you, Maynard, don't believe me. And in the process I hope to
demonstrate to everyone else that the IHR et al. are nothing but bigoted hate
machines.
> The usual phrase is "six million Jews". You've changed the subject from
> "Jews" to "innocents".
Then the usual phrase is inaccurate, I believe. Approximately six million
were killed, the vast majority Jews, with homosexuals, gypsies, political
dissidents, and others among them. To say that six million Jews were killed
is to ignore the fact that the Nazis struck down everyone in their way for any
reason, and is misleading, in my opinion.
I'm sure you've read the files I've uploaded. Do you have any comment so far,
or can I conclude that you agree with them all?
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2495 - History
Date: 07-09-92 22:37
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: The Holocaust
Replies: #2421 #2513
JJ> > JJ> Your claim is that not making thousands of computer
JJ> > JJ> operators around the world pay to distribute your propaganda
JJ> > JJ> is censorship. That's ludicrous.
JJ> >
JJ> > False. What makes it censorship most of all is the illegal and
JJ> > unethical
JJ> > tactics which were used to get this system cut off from USENET.
JJ> First of all, what was illegal about your getting cut off?
Read my above response. It was the tactics employed that were illegal and
unethical.
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2513 - History
Date: 07-10-92 03:49
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: The Holocaust
Replies: #2495 #2514
JJ> JJ> Your claim is that not making thousands of computer
JJ> JJ> operators around the world pay to distribute your propaganda
JJ> JJ> is censorship.
JJ> >
JJ> > You've misstated what my "claim" is, also.
JJ> I don't think so. Please try to convince me otherwise.
JJ> State your claim again, keeping in mind that the systems
JJ> which were receiving your propaganda were paying for it.
I don't know which "claim" you're referring to. Do you mean my claim that we
should have Freedom of Speech? Or do you mean my claim that the way in which
this system was cut off from USENET (the tactics employed) were illegal and
unethical? Or....? About "[my] propaganda", what the heck do you mean? On
that note, do you realize that I've paid thousands of dollars to let you
distribute "your propaganda" on this BBS?
JJ> > I don't have to like all cultures and their ways though.
JJ> So is Zionism a "culture" now? I thought it was a political
JJ> movement. Or are you referring to the Jewish culture? But
JJ> you just said you didn't pre-judge Jews! (Go ahead, worm
JJ> your way out of it by saying "I just said I didn't _have_to_
JJ> like them, not that I _didn't_ like them.")
You took my statment completely out of context. I wasn't talking about
Zionism. Nor was I talking about any particular culture. To answer your
question, no -- Zionism is a quasi-religious political belief/goal. I wasn't
talking about Jews either. I was just saying that I have the right to
choose/form my own "culture". What the heck is wrong with that? Are you
trying to say (in a DoubleSpeak fashion) that individual choice and
sovereignty is racism or a form of prejudice (especially unjust prejudice)?
JJ> Some of the lies to which I refer are: that the Jews in
JJ> extermination camps were not intentionally killed;
Let's take this one at a time, i.e. analyze what really was claimed by certain
users of this system and by Holocaust Revisionists in general. Nobody claims
that *some* Jews (and others) were not intentionally killed. Numbers and
method (among other things) are debated, however.
JJ> that a B-CPU user would give $50,000 to anyone who fulfilled
JJ> certain criteria; that Hitler did not know of the mass
That was not claimed. Ralph Winston did claim, however, that he'd see to it
that the money was paid out if one or more of said criteria was met. He's
still saying so, and none of the criteria have been met, so far as I'm aware.
JJ> that Hitler did not know of the mass extermination;
I believe it was British historian David Irving who made that assertion, based
on his years of research with Hitler's documents, etc. So yes, that has been
claimed by at least one historian. "Mass extermination" is a loaded statement
in the context of the Holocaust debate. You would be more accurate to use
"alleged mass extermination."
JJ> that Zyklon-B was explosive;
So that's a lie, huh? Go check the Merck index. Zyklon-B is highly
explosive.
JJ> that Zyklon-B was too inefficient to kill people;
That was not claimed. It was claimed that, if killing people was the object,
there were much more suitable gasses available, however.
JJ> that Zyklon-B was too poisonous for the Germans to use;
Who said that?
JJ> that human bodies cannot be consumed in fires in open pits
That was claimed, and it is true. Human bodies are not dry wood. It would
take tremendous amounts of fuel (such as gasoline) to burn bodies in such a
way. More than the Germans had at hand, that is for sure. They had a
substantial fuel shortage at the time. And people throwing bodies into such
an inferno would be burned to death themselves. What part of that are you
claiming is a "lie"?
JJ> that Anne Frank's diary is a hoax; and so on.
Yes, that was claimed. I do not know for certain if it is true. I've read
various things about it, such as that the handwriting changed at various parts
of the alleged diaries, and parts of the diaries were written with a
ball-point pen, which was not invented at the supposed time of the writing. I
not looked into this personally.
....And so on? You call long distance from Chicago, Illinois (or is it Paris,
France?) just to write these kinds of false statements? And then you expect
people to think that the rest of your statements would be more rational than
the ones you just made? Give me a break.
JJ> All I can do, and all I hope to do, is to demonstrate
JJ> conclusively that a large number of these lies are lies.
Better take a course on logical argumentation or something, then. And a
course on reading comprehension while you're at it, perhaps.
JJ> I won't be able to get to them all, because there have been
JJ> hundreds of people working for decades to make up new ones.
Uh-huh. Sure. The same meaningless statement could be made against the
Holocausters. It would be meaningless then too, without substantiation. I
suspect it is true about the Holocausters though. They've made thousands of
books, movies, articles, etc., and dozens of "Holocaust museums" in America
alone (I don't remember the exact number). Their hours and money put into it
FAR exceed the hours and money put into the effort to challenge their claims.
You're trying to turn the truth over onto its head.
JJ> And I won't be able to chase them all down with replies to
JJ> replies to replies to replies, because I don't have 24 hours
JJ> a day to do this.
Then let a televised debate, with qualified and knowledgeable debators on both
sides, occur. That's what is called for. That's what the Holocausters are
terrified of. They run away from every such opportunity. Even ones they
initially planned themselves, they back out of. That's cowardly, and reveals
someting in itself.
JJ> > The usual phrase is "six million Jews". You've changed the subject from
JJ> > "Jews" to "innocents".
JJ> Then the usual phrase is inaccurate, I believe.
JJ> Approximately six million were killed, the vast majority
JJ> Jews, with homosexuals, gypsies, political dissidents, and
JJ> others among them. To say that six million Jews were killed
JJ> is to ignore the fact that the Nazis struck down everyone in
JJ> their way for any reason, and is misleading, in my opinion.
Then you're a Holocaust Revisionist. Six million Jews are said to have died
in the Holocaust (even though at times figures as high as 11 million have been
used), and something like 5 or 6 (seldom heard about) other victims allegedly
perished in the "Holocaust". You've approximately halved the number. You
must be an evil Nazi anti-Semite (ha ha ha). Just like the Auschwitz museum,
for changing their 4 million figure (carved in stone for decades, but chiseled
out recently!) to "about 1 million" total. History in the making. How evil
and deceitful everyone is who questions Official Truth, huh?
Maynard
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2514 - History (Received)
Date: 07-10-92 04:16
From: Maynard
To: Maynard
Subject: The Holocaust
Replies: #2513 #2515
Ooops, a couple typos (and even a word omission!) Better proof-read better.
And don't give me any excuses about how "late" it is, Maynard! (hehehe)
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2515 - History (Received)
Date: 07-10-92 04:19
From: Maynard
To: Maynard
Subject: The Holocaust
Replies: #2514 do you realize that I've paid thousands of dollars to let you
> distribute "your propaganda" on this BBS?
Totally bogus analogy. When Usenet sites distribute your articles, they pay
long-distance fees. You've already laid out the cash, and you did it of
your own free will, don't go laying it at my feet or anyone else's.
If _you_ called _me_ to get my files, then the analogy would work.
> I was just saying that I have the right to
> choose/form my own "culture". What the heck is wrong with that? Are you
> trying to say (in a DoubleSpeak fashion) that individual choice and
> sovereignty is racism or a form of prejudice (especially unjust prejudice)?
OK, let's drop this topic. "Individual choice" (a phrase which, out of
any specific context, is rather devoid of meaning) is not racism,
of course. Choosing to not like Jews because they are Jews, however,
would be racism. Can we agree on this much?
I'm not sure what a culture formed by one person would look like...but,
as I said, I'll drop it.
> JJ> Some of the lies to which I refer are: that the Jews in
> JJ> extermination camps were not intentionally killed;
> Let's take this one at a time...
Yes, and let's do so in separate threads. You've already seen my
individual responses to each of these. One, however, is so short,
I'll deal with it in this message:
> Nobody claims
> that *some* Jews (and others) were not intentionally killed. Numbers
> and method (among other things) are debated, however.
The IHR's "66 Q&A about the Holocaust" claims that only 300,000 Jews
died, and that they died relatively-natural deaths:
> 39. What is the difference if six million or 300,000 Jews died during
> this awesome period?
> 5,700,000. Besides -and contrary to "Holocaust" propaganda-
> there was no deliberate attempt to exterminate anyone.
I submit that this is not a debate about "numbers and method." I say
(roughly) six million Jews were deliberately and systematically
murdered. You say one-twentieth that figure just happened to die in
otherwise-benign concentration camps. This is not a mere difference
in numbers.
> You're trying to turn the truth over onto its head.
Ditto.
> JJ> And I won't be able to chase them all down with replies to
> JJ> replies to replies to replies, because I don't have 24 hours
> JJ> a day to do this.
> Then let a televised debate, with qualified and knowledgeable debators
> on both sides, occur. That's what is called for. That's what the
> Holocausters are terrified of. They run away from every such opportunity.
_Let_ it occur? I'm not CEO of a television station! Please talk
to _me_, not to the invisible Zionist conspirators.
I think I recall reading one of your files which explained how some TV
station backed out of a debate. My memory could be wrong. Could you
post your source here?
> JJ> > The usual phrase is "six million Jews".
> JJ> Then the usual phrase is inaccurate, I believe.
> Then you're a Holocaust Revisionist.
I'm not a revisionist; in this case, I was just wrong...
> Six million Jews are said to have
> died in the Holocaust (even though at times figures as high as 11 million
> have been used), and something like 5 or 6 [million] (seldom heard about)
> other victims allegedly perished in the "Holocaust".
This is pretty accurate; 5,700,000 Jews are estimated to have perished,
and about six million others. You're right, the "others" aren't mentioned
as often--my own poor memory is witness to this. This is probably because
they don't fit into one category, whereas the Jews were persecuted solely
because of their Jewishness.
"Others" included three million Soviet POWs, the elderly, the mentally
incompetent, political foes, Allied POWs, and so forth.
Can you cite a source which claims that 11,000,000 Jews perished?
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2746 - History
Date: 07-15-92 03:18
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: The Holocaust
Replies: -> #2760
* In a message to Maynard, Jamie said:
> JJ> Some of the lies to which I refer are: that the Jews in
> JJ> extermination camps were not intentionally killed;
> Let's take this one at a time...
Ja> Yes, and let's do so in separate threads. You've already seen my
Ja> individual responses to each of these. One, however, is so short,
Ja> I'll deal with it in this message:
Nope, I have *not* seen your "individual responses to each of these."
Where are they?
> Nobody claims
> that *some* Jews (and others) were not intentionally killed. Numbers
> and method (among other things) are debated, however.
Ja> The IHR's "66 Q&A about the Holocaust" claims that only 300,000 Jews
Ja> died, and that they died relatively-natural deaths:
> 39. What is the difference if six million or 300,000 Jews died during
> this awesome period?
> 5,700,000. Besides -and contrary to "Holocaust" propaganda-
> there was no deliberate attempt to exterminate anyone.
Ja> I submit that this is not a debate about "numbers and method." I say
Ja> (roughly) six million Jews were deliberately and systematically
Ja> murdered. You say one-twentieth that figure just happened to die in
Ja> otherwise-benign concentration camps. This is not a mere difference
Ja> in numbers.
It is certainly a debate about numbers. Method of death is also at issue,
and whether or not the German government of the time had a policy of
extermination, and other things.
> You're trying to turn the truth over onto its head.
Ja> Ditto.
Again, you quoted what I said wildly and completely out of context. I was
talking about the time and money the Holocausters put into their stories
vs. the time and money the Revisionists have put into refuting their
stories. The Holocausters have put vastly larger amounts of time and money
into it.
That said, please document (quote in context please, if indeed you can do
so!) how I am "trying to turn the truth over onto its head." I believe I
already did so about you in that specific part of my original message.
Reverse read to see my original message.
> JJ> > The usual phrase is "six million Jews".
> JJ> Then the usual phrase is inaccurate, I believe.
> Then you're a Holocaust Revisionist.
Ja> I'm not a revisionist; in this case, I was just wrong...
Wow! I've never seen a Holocauster admit THAT before! Congratulations.
> Six million Jews are said to have
> died in the Holocaust (even though at times figures as high as 11 million
> have been used), and something like 5 or 6 [million] (seldom heard about)
> other victims allegedly perished in the "Holocaust".
Ja> Can you cite a source which claims that 11,000,000 Jews perished?
I'll try.
If you keep misrepresenting what has been said, quoting me so wildly out of
context, or if you persist in being overtly dishonest in any other way or
a just plain shitty debating partner, I must tell you I probably will not
waste my time courteously and thoroughly responding to all of your
rude and untruthful messages and statements.
If anyone has any doubt, do a careful reverse read.
Maynard
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2760 - History
Date: 07-15-92 08:44
From: Deuter Onomy
To: Maynard And Jamie
Subject: The Holocaust
Replies: #2746 * In a message to Maynard, Jamie said:
and so on, and so on..........
Tedious and confusing argument deleted.
These posts are getting much too long to hold my (and maybe other's)
attention. Very short posts are *MUCH* better.
As far as your debate is going, well, who remembers who said what
in context or out of context?
I say "The Big Sleep" last night and watched Bogie and Betty do a little
humorous episode with the telephone. She calls the cops, the cops answer,
he takes the phone away and pretends the cops have called him, tells them
he isn't the police station, passes the phone to her, she plays the same
game, and so forth........
This is kind of what's going on here. I can't follow the thread because
it's too wordy and there's a lot of denial going on.
Just thought you might like to know.
-Deuter
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2817 - History
Date: 07-16-92 06:30
From: Jamie
To: Deuter Onomy
Subject: The Holocaust
Replies: #2760 These posts are getting much too long to hold my (and maybe other's)
> attention. Very short posts are *MUCH* better.
> ...
> I can't follow the thread because
> it's too wordy and there's a lot of denial going on.
This particular thread, the one with "The Holocaust" as a subject, is kind of
a catch-all for things that don't fit into the individual topics. Those ones,
the ones I've given questions as subjects, will be more direct and focused.
I hope. :-)
If your attention is waning, you can probably skip "The Holocaust" and
"Anti-Semitism" messages. The meat of the debate will be in the
question-subject threads.
/**********************************************************************/
[Maynard's last reply being mostly rhetorical, I dropped most everything.
I did refer to some of that reply in my first post in "Context and
Misrepresentation."]
Archive/File: orgs/american/oregon/banished.cpu gannon.0714
Message #2676 - History
Date: 07-14-92 04:52
From: Jamie
To: All
Subject: How explosive is Zyklon-B gas?
> JJ> Some of the lies to which I refer are:
> Let's take this one at a time...
> JJ> that Zyklon-B was explosive;
> So that's a lie, huh? Go check the Merck index. Zyklon-B is highly
> explosive.
The _minimal_ concentration required for an explosion is 56,000 parts per
million. 300 parts per million kills humans within a few minutes.
That's nearly two hundred times under the minimum.
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2749 - History
Date: 07-15-92 04:01
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: How explosive is Zyklon-B gas?
Replies: -> #2763
* In a message to All, Jamie said:
> JJ> Some of the lies to which I refer are:
> Let's take this one at a time...
> JJ> that Zyklon-B was explosive;
> So that's a lie, huh? Go check the Merck index. Zyklon-B is highly
> explosive.
Ja> The _minimal_ concentration required for an explosion is 56,000 parts
Ja> per million. 300 parts per million kills humans within a few minutes.
Ja> That's nearly two hundred times under the minimum.
Oh, so you responded to a few of my comments after all. Why'd you address
them to "all" instead of to me?
Anyway, you've contradicted yourself here. First you say Zyklon-B isn't
explosive, now you say it is.
Maynard
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2763 - History
Date: 07-15-92 10:39
From: Damon Atherly
To: Maynard
Subject: How explosive is Zyklon-B gas?
Replies: #2749 Ja> The _minimal_ concentration required for an explosion is 56,000 parts
MM> Ja> per million. 300 parts per million kills humans within a few
MM> minutes.
MM> Ja> That's nearly two hundred times under the minimum.
MM> Oh, so you responded to a few of my comments after all.
MM> Why'd you address
MM> them to "all" instead of to me?
MM> Anyway, you've contradicted yourself here. First you say
MM> Zyklon-B isn't
MM> explosive, now you say it is.
MM> Maynard
Don't you think this point deserves a little more attention than that? When I
read through some of your "revisionist" files, this seemed to be a pretty
important part of the argument against the holocost.
Anyway, it's not much of a contradiction. A lethal concentration of Zyclon-B
is not explosive. A much higher concentration is. C'mon, you're evading the
point!
I)./-\.
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2862 - History
Date: 07-17-92 05:47
From: Jamie
To: Maynard
Subject: How explosive is Zyklon-B gas?
Replies: #2763 Anyway, you've contradicted yourself here. First you say Zyklon-B isn't
> explosive, now you say it is.
This is wordplay. HCN gas is explosive at high concentrations, but not at
the concentrations that the Nazis were using. How hard is that to
understand?
Do you concede that the IHR is wrong when they say the gas would have
exploded because the guards were smoking cigarettes?
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2401 - History
Date: 07-20-92 19:52
From: Maynard
To: Damon Atherly
Subject: How explosive is Zyklon-B gas?
Replies: #2170 #2406
* In a message to Maynard, Damon Atherly said:
MM> Ja> The _minimal_ concentration required for an explosion is 56,000 parts
MM> Ja> per million. 300 parts per million kills humans within a few
MM> minutes.
MM> Ja> That's nearly two hundred times under the minimum.
MM> Oh, so you responded to a few of my comments after all.
MM> Why'd you address
MM> them to "all" instead of to me?
MM> Anyway, you've contradicted yourself here. First you say
MM> Zyklon-B isn't
MM> explosive, now you say it is.
DA> Don't you think this point deserves a little more attention than that?
DA> When I read through some of your "revisionist" files, this seemed to
DA> be a pretty important part of the argument against the holocost.
DA> Anyway, it's not much of a contradiction. A lethal concentration of
DA> Zyclon-B is not explosive. A much higher concentration is. C'mon,
DA> you're evading the point!
It wasn't my impression that it was one of the more important points.
However, it would still be too dangerous, even at low concentrations,
because the gas, being of a different density than the surrounding air,
would form concentrated pockets. Also, about the point made by the
Revisionists that men couldn't have gone in immediately after the alleged
gassings to drag bodies out, while eating and smoking and talking (not
wearing gas masks) has more to do with the toxicity of the gas (and the
point that they weren't wearing gas masks) than the very real flammability
of the gas, and its tendency to concentrate in pockets.
Maynard
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2406 - History
Date: 07-20-92 20:22
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: How explosive is Zyklon-B gas?
Replies: #2401 Maynard writes:
> Anyway, you've contradicted yourself here. First you say Zyklon-B isn't
> explosive, now you say it is.
Ja> This is wordplay. HCN gas is explosive at high concentrations, but
Ja> not at the concentrations that the Nazis were using. How hard is that
Ja> to understand?
Perhaps you are not taking into consideration that HCN gas, being of a
different density than the surrounding atmosphere, forms dense pockets,
which creates an explosive hazzard. See my message to Damon Atherly in
this area, in which I wrote about this and about the toxicity of it, as
well as the fact that they did not wear gas masks (that's part of the
point, if not most of it, about them smoking, etc. -- they weren't wearing
gas masks when they came in "immediately" after "gassing" and "drug out the
bodies.")
Ja> Do you concede that the IHR is wrong when they say the gas would have
Ja> exploded because the guards were smoking cigarettes?
No. It's possible, but not a sure thing. The dense pockets of gas
probably would form rather unpredictably. They would cause a hazard
nonetheless.
Maynard
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2653 - History
Date: 07-27-92 00:05
From: Jamie
To: Maynard
Subject: How explosive is Zyklon-B gas?
Replies: #2258 HCN gas, being of a
> different density than the surrounding atmosphere, forms dense pockets
This is the same guy who told me to "look it up in the Merck index."
You need to do some looking up yourself, Maynard, instead of _making_
things up.
HCN weighs 27 grams per mole. Air weighs 28. "Concentrated pockets"
indeed. It's just barely lighter than air. Please clue us in, Gannon--
how many physics classes have you had? Do you have _any_ idea what
you're talking about?
I remind the reader that all this still is irrelevant, because the
chambers were ventilated, Maynard's evidenceless assertion
notwithstanding. But this is a good example of how utterly stupid the
deniers' claims are: that a gas 4% lighter than air will spontaneously
form pockets of concentration 180 times denser than the surrounding
mixture...this is how reason and logic work over at the IHR.
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2519 - History
Date: 07-27-92 02:22
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: Jamie, straws in hands, takes Ballet
* In a message to Maynard, Jamie said:
> HCN gas, being of a
> different density than the surrounding atmosphere, forms dense pockets
Ja> This is the same guy who told me to "look it up in the Merck index."
Ja> You need to do some looking up yourself, Maynard, instead of _making_
Ja> things up.
I'm not a chemist or a physicist, but I do know that HCN is of a different
density than air, as you conceded. Therefore it would begin to form
concentrated, isolated pockets given any amount of time, particularly since
the difference in density is quite significant, as far as atmospheric
gasses and their commingling goes. You say the phrase "concentrated
pockets" is a lie. It is not. We cannot know precisely how concentrated
they would have been because of such factors as air turbulance, but it
would be relatively concentrated and definitely not dispersed uniformly.
You consistently evade most of my points, such as that they (the alleged
executioners) couldn't have walked in there like that without dying
themselves, if they walked in "immediately" and WITHOUT GAS MASKS, and if
"gassings" of people had just been performed. You're not a very adept
dancer, but I give you an 8 for effort. Maybe you'd do better if truth
were on your side.
Ja> I remind the reader that all this still is irrelevant, because the
Ja> chambers were ventilated, Maynard's evidenceless assertion
Ja> notwithstanding.
I have obtained proof that they weren't, and I'll type it in sometime. You
made the claim, though, so why don't you try to substantiate it?? Always
blowing smoke and making smears...
Ja> But this is a good example of how utterly stupid the
Ja> deniers' claims are: that a gas 4% lighter than air will
Ja> spontaneously form pockets of concentration 180 times denser than the
Ja> surrounding mixture...this is how reason and logic work over at the
Ja> IHR.
I didn't claim any specific figures, let alone "180 times denser", and I
know of nobody who has. You're shooting at straw men. But even if you
were 100% correct about this, it has absolutely no relevance. The
"executioners" would have died from the toxicity before they'd die in an
explosion from the cigarette smoking amidst the gas. According to your
beloved "eyewitness testimony", including the often-cited, false, and
obtained-by-torture testimony of Rudolf Hoess, they came in immediately and
WITHOUT gas masks!
Maynard
.... "Could you continue your petty bickering? I find it most intriguing."
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2591 - History (Received)
Date: 07-28-92 01:35
From: Sorbut
To: Maynard
Subject: Jamie tries to claim David Irving doesn't have a degree! HA HA HA!
Replies: #2517 #2592
* In a message to Maynard, Sorbut said:
So> Maynard, all your mockery not withstanding, where is you evidence that
So> the chap has a degree
Actually, I posted it. I'm rather shocked that Jamie would even try to
claim he didn't have a degree. A Historian doesn't get international
awards like that and be published all over the place, etc. without being a
Historian... Heck, even if he didn't have a degree, but was so highly
acclaimed, that would serve to show that the degree doesn't matter so much.
Anyway, I don't have proof that he has a degree, but I could try to get
ahold of him or someone else who knows and get proof, I'm sure! But I
won't bother him about such a stupid thing. Geeze. I rather think Jamie
should prove that he *doesn't* have a degree, as he made the accusation.
So> (as if that was even a serious point worthy of
So> the time you devoted to it in light of all the other very significant
So> points Jamie has challenged you on.)
Which "other very significant points," pray tell? Oh, you tell us one of
them below...
So> I'm particularly interested in
So> your response to the fact that HCN and air have almost the same
So> molarity.
Listen very carefully now (or read very carefully.) HCN has a molarity, as
it is a compound. Air does not, strictly speaking, because it is a
solution. The compounds present in air, in their average ratios, could be
thought of as having an "average molarity", but strictly speaking,
solutions (such as air) do not have molarity. That's not my point though.
Keep listening.
I have two points with which to answer your question. First, even as Jamie
admits, air and HCN have a mass difference of 4%, which is quite
significant. Consider how corn oil and water, which are not very much
different in mass, will separate into layers when put into a container and
allowed to sit for any amount of time. Liquids of even closer mass/density
will do the same thing. And so will gases, even more so, because they have
a lower "viscosity" (they are more mobile, less solid.)
Second point: It doesn't matter if HCN would form a layer or pocket
concentrated (or pure) enough to blow up, anyway, as the guards would have
died from the gas, since they supposedly came in immediately and without
gas masks.
Any questions?
So> How can you put together such a house of cards and not admit
So> as much when you are presented with such clear refutation of so many
So> points.
I don't know, how CAN you holocaustomaniacs do that?
So> It disappoints me in you. You talk the talk of open mindedness
So> and freedom of speech (freedom of thought) yet you are slavishly
So> addicted to your belief in this comically farcical theory of yours.
Sorry to disappoint you (boo-hoo-hoo.) Besides talking about the values
and necessities of Freedom of Speech and Intellectual Freedom, I do
something much more important and even more frequently (in fact
constantly): I run this BBS and allow people to express whatever facts and
opinions they so desire on it, whenever they like. That includes you. I
don't care if you disagree with my ideas, you ungrateful holocauster. The
point is that everyone here is free to express their own ideas.
Maynard
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Now, as I've said before, this is a moot point, because the chambers were
ventilated. (And yes, I will provide evidence of that, later.) But my
curiosity has been piqued. I want to see exactly how far into absurdity
Gannon will go, in order to maintain the IHR's ridiculous assertion.
OK, we've established that HCN, at 27 grams per mole, is just a bit
lighter than air. (Previously, I said air was 28 g/mol, but a friend of
mine who's presently doing work with gas diffusion at U of Michigan says
he uses the figure 28.8 or so. Let's call it that, and agree than HCN
is 6% lighter than air.)
First, Gannon said that "HCN gas, being of a different density than the
surrounding atmosphere, forms dense pockets...."
Then he said that because "HCN is of a different density than air,
....it would begin to form concentrated, isolated pockets given any amount
of time, particularly since the difference in density is quite
significant, as far as atmospheric gasses and their commingling goes."
Mm-hm. Quite significant. Oh, I see. Do go on.
Later, in a reponse to Sorbut, he admonishes us to "Listen very carefully
now," and then says:
> air and HCN have a mass difference of 4%, which is quite
> significant. Consider how corn oil and water, which are not very much
> different in mass, will separate into layers when put into a container
> and allowed to sit for any amount of time. Liquids of even closer
> mass/density will do the same thing. And so will gases, even more so,
> because they have a lower "viscosity" (they are more mobile, less
> solid.)
Well, first of all, corn oil and water differ in _density_ not mass.
And I'll bet it's quite a reasonable difference too, probably more than
six percent. But let's pretend that's not important. Let's also
pretend that Maynard knows what he's talking about when he says that
gasses will separate even more than liquids, although the exact opposite
is true.
So, gasses separate into layers given enough time. Even gasses whose
densities differ by as little as six percent.
Maynard, do you smoke? If so, are you aware that hydrogen gas weighs in
at 2 g/mol? Aren't you afraid of the thin layer of hydrogen on your
ceiling right now? Do you think, if you wave your cigarette in the air,
the hydrogen (93% lighter than air) will explode?
Maynard, do you breathe? Have you ever lain on the floor? Why didn't
you suffocate in the layer of carbon dioxide (44 g/mol, 57% heavier)
that's down there?
Maynard, are you over 22 inches tall? In a house with nine-foot
ceilings, don't you think the 20% of the atmosphere that's oxygen (32
g/mol, 11% heavier) will form a layer on the floor? Of course, if
your head were up in the 86-inch layer of nitrogen gas (28 g/mol, 1%
lighter) that would be resting on top of the oxygen, that would explain
a lot of things...
Sorbut, I believe you are right on this matter, it's time to move on to
other things. But I want to hear Gannon's answer to this one, first...
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2729 - History
Date: 07-31-92 04:19
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: Jamie tries to claim David Irving doesn't have a degree! HA HA HA!
* In a message to Maynard, Jamie said:
Ja> OK, we've established that HCN, at 27 grams per mole, is just a bit
Ja> lighter than air. (Previously, I said air was 28 g/mol, but a friend
Ja> of mine who's presently doing work with gas diffusion at U of Michigan
Ja> says he uses the figure 28.8 or so. Let's call it that, and agree than
Ja> HCN is 6% lighter than air.)
Well, at least you have finally caught me making a false statement. I've
been waiting for that. In this case, it was due to my foolishness. I
shouldn't have taken your word on the mass of HCN. Unfortunately, I was
deceived. I guess that's why I ever was an undoubting Holocaust believer
and heart-bleeder in the first place. I'm too trusting.
Ja> First, Gannon said that "HCN gas, being of a different density than
Ja> the surrounding atmosphere, forms dense pockets...."
Now, about this "Gannon" thing, didn't you say before that the only reason
you were trying to let people know my real name, address, etc. (when all
along I've gotten numerous threats of various sorts, including death
threats) is so that a "civil suit" (and an International civil suit, to
boot!) could be filed against me, so people could send me registered mail,
etc. Well none of that has happened. Your excuse is transparent.
> ...air and HCN have a mass difference of 4%, which is quite
> significant. Consider how corn oil and water, which are not very much
> different in mass, will separate into layers when put into a container
> and allowed to sit for any amount of time. Liquids of even closer
> mass/density will do the same thing. And so will gases, even more so,
> because they have a lower "viscosity" (they are more mobile, less
> solid.)
Ja> Well, first of all, we are talking about differences in _density_ not
Ja> mass. And I'll bet there's quite a reasonable difference between corn
Ja> oil and water, probably more than six percent. But let's pretend
Ja> that's not important. Let's also pretend that Maynard knows what he's
Ja> talking about when he says that gasses will separate even more than
Ja> liquids, although the exact opposite is true.
OK, I goofed, I should have written "density", not "mass". And maybe I'm
wrong about the gasses and their properties, too. I'm not a chemist and
it's been several years since I've learned that kind of stuff. So why
don't you and your experts tell us all about it? And tell me how it's
relevant to anything, too, please. As I've already pointed out, it's
irrelevant if the gas would have been at an explosive concentration, as the
guards (who were not wearing gas masks) would have kicked the bucket from
the toxicity of the gas in the "Holocaust" scenerio, especially as they (by
the "eyewitness" accounts cited as "proof" of the "Holocaust") went in to
"drag out the bodies" of the "gassed" "immediately" after "gassing." I
don't expect you to deal with the rationality of that, though, or even to
attempt to analyze it rationally. You haven't yet. You've been avoiding
all those types of things, in your attempt to keep your beliefs and try to
look credible.
I feel sorry for you; dodging facts and issues in such an emotionally-laden
issue for you must be rather uncomfortable. Or doesn't it phase you? You
know, "faith" requires no logic. Is that what we're dealing with here?
It certainly seems that way to me.
Ja> Maynard, do you smoke? If so, are you aware that hydrogen gas weighs
Ja> in at 2 g/mol? Aren't you afraid of the thin layer of hydrogen on your
Ja> ceiling right now? Do you think, if you wave your cigarette in the
Ja> air, the hydrogen (93% lighter than air) will explode?
Ja> Maynard, do you breathe? Have you ever lain on the floor? Why didn't
Ja> you suffocate in the layer of carbon dioxide (44 g/mol, 57% heavier)
Ja> that would be down there?
Ja> Maynard, are you over 24 inches tall? In a house with ten-foot
Ja> ceilings, don't you think the oxygen in the atmosphere (32 g/mol,
Ja> 11% heavier) will form a two-foot layer on the floor? Of course, if
Ja> your head were up in the eight-foot layer of nitrogen gas that would
Ja> be resting on top of the oxygen, that would explain a lot of things...
I yield to you and your "expert" friend (on USENET I presume, probably
another Holocaustomaniac, but perhaps I'm mistaken in my jaded assumptions)
and your explanatory abilities. You tell me why.
Maynard
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2622 - History
Date: 07-30-92 01:17
From: Sorbut
To: Maynard
Subject: Jamie tries to claim David Irving doesn't have a degree! HA HA HA!
Replies: #2592 #2623
Ungrateful? ungrateful?? Am I to infer that you are saying I must exhibit my
gratitude by agreeing with you.
You surprised me with your comeback about molarity. I knew the term
was inappropriate for describing air but your fallacious discussion
of how HCN would behave made me think you probably wouldn't appreciate the
fact.
Having reviewed quite a number of your discussions I've noticed that when you
become stressed you drift into name calling mode. The man who angers you
defeats you.
/**********************************************************************/
[Not sure where this message would belong...]
Message #2623 - History
Date: 07-30-92 01:25
From: Sorbut
To: Maynard
Subject: Jamie tries to claim David Irving doesn't have a degree! HA HA HA!
Replies: #2622 I'm not familiar with the specific properties of HCN but, even a
So> liquid flea bomb such as black flag or raid can be atomized long
So> enough to do the job it is intended for. I have a difficult time
So> believing the Germans would have been unable to solve the problem of
So> rendering HCN into an effective agent for achieving their ends.
I think you're misunderstanding the issue. Jamie has chosen to try to
sound authoritative by fixating on one irrelavent point which the IHR has
made, and that is that HCN would form pockets in the air. It is irrelevant
because the guards would've died anyway, making the story impossible, as
they were NOT WEARING GAS MASKS (as "eyewitness testimony" confirms) as
they went in to "drag out the bodies" "immediately after" "gassing." I'm
sure they could have easily devised ways to kill people with HCN if they
wanted to, but the ways they supposedly used are simply absurd and
impossible for more than several reasons.
Maynard
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2590 - History (Received)
Date: 07-31-92 11:57
From: Sorbut
To: Maynard
Subject: Jamie tries to claim David Irving doesn't have a degree! HA HA HA!
Replies: #2565 [Jamie quotes Maynard as saying:]
> > I yield to you and your "expert" friend (on USENET I presume, probably
> > another Holocaustomaniac, but perhaps I'm mistaken in my jaded
> > assumptions)...
>
> [Maynard replies:]
> As you know, but as you are hoping others don't know (since you cut off the
> most important part of my sentence above), I was yielding to your and
> your supposed expert friend's "explanatory powers" to explain how you were
> right and I was wrong, and how gases of 6% mass difference would (as you
> say) NOT separate and form relatively dense pockets or layers if allowed to
> stand for several minutes or more. You and your friend failed to even try
> to explain anything about that. So my yield was in vain.
Ahhh, _that's_ what you meant. So you _are_ still asserting that the gases
will "separate and form relatively dense pockets or layers." I apologize
for misquoting you--I didn't realize I was doing it, as I misunderstood you.
Right after I got through explaining everything, you said "I yield to you and
your friend's explanatory powers." You see how I could have misunderstood,
I hope.
(My dictionary lists definitions for "yield" as "give up under pressure,"
"surrender," "lose precedence, leadership, etc." If what you mean is "I
think I'm right, but have no proof, so I'm asking you to prove the opposite,"
please try to find English words which describe this situation. Otherwise,
you'll end up writing absurdities like "my yield was in vain.")
Now. I've already proved this. But I'll do it again, because it went right
over your head. The proof is _reductio_ad_absurdum_, a venerable and
respected technique. Pythagorus used it to demonstrate that the square root
of two is irrational...but I digress.
Here we go. Ready?
First, assume that gases which differ in density by 6% or more will "separate
and form relatively dense pockets or layers if allowed to stand for several
minutes or more." (Unless you're claiming that this separation will occur
only with gases which differ by _exactly_ 6%. Perhaps you'll claim this
next.) I will also assume that heavier gases will separate _down_ and lighter
ones, _up_. Logical enough?
Next, realize that oxygen's weight is 32 g/mol, and that nitrogen's is 28.
We are taking the weight of air at 28.8 g/mol. So oxygen is a little over
11% heavier than air. HCN gas weighs 27 g/mol, which is 6.25% lighter than
air--we'll call it 6%.
Then, realize that 11 is larger than 6. Proof is left to the reader.
Next, realize that oxygen, by the initial assumption, will "separate and
form relatively dense pockets or layers if allowed to stand for several
minutes or more."
Then, realize that our atmosphere is about 20% oxygen and about 80%
nitrogen.
Then, realize that human beings, being members of the animal kingdom,
breathe oxygen. If I'm going too fast for you, Maynard, just say so.
Next, realize that, after the oxygen (which is almost twice as denser than
air as HCN gas) forms a "relatively dense pocket or layer" on the floor of
the room, no human being will be able to breathe. Since my ceiling is ten
feet tall, and since there's been much more than "several minutes" that the
air in this room has been standing, the oxygen is in a "relatively dense
pocket or layer" coming no higher than about two feet off the floor, and,
since I am in fact almost six feet tall, I am presently dead.
Finally, realize that dead people cannot type. But I am typing this.
This is a contradiction, hence the initial assumption is wrong. Hence,
gases do _not_ "separate and form relatively dense pockets or layers if
allowed to stand for several minutes or more."
_Now_ do you understand?
If for some reason you doubt this reasoning (I'm sure you'll come up with
something, probably just the assertion that I'm a "shitty debating partner"
or somesuch), please find any Chemistry I textbook, look up "miscibility,
gases" in the index, and tell us what you find. Or, if you haven't gotten
over your case of bibliophobia, I'll clue you in: gases and liquids
behave very differently, and your hypotheticals about this difference are
exactly the opposite of the truth.
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2881 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 09-09-92 00:42
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: How explosive is Zyklon-B gas?
Replies: #2798 (My dictionary lists definitions for "yield" as [...]
Ja> "lose precedence, leadership, etc."
That's what I meant. Essentially I was saying, "explain it to us then,
Jamie."
You didn't explain it before, nor did you explain it by repeating the same
hasty generalization fallacy in the previous message (which I am responding
to.) You committed the 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' (appeal to ignorance,
for the non-Latin-speaking) fallacy both times.
Please EXPLAIN how and why gases do not separate, or under what
circumstances they do or do not separate, and WHY they do or do not under
those circumstances. Are you claiming that gases never separate??
Ja> please try to find English words which describe
Ja> this situation. Otherwise, you'll end up writing absurdities like "my
Ja> yield was in vain.")
How was that an absurdity? Did you not understand it? I meant, roughly,
"my giving you the floor on that topic was of no avail."
Ja> The proof is _reductio_ad_absurdum_, a venerable
Ja> and respected technique.
Also, please define "reductio ad absurdum", as for some reason the logic
texts which I possess do not list anything whatsoever under that name.
Maynard
.... I'm sorry, Jamie, I'm afraid I can't do that.
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #4117 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 09-30-92 05:45
From: Jamie
To: Maynard
Subject: How explosive is Zyklon-B gas?
Maynard says:
> Also, please define "reductio ad absurdum", as for some reason the
> logic texts which I possess do not list anything whatsoever under
> that name.
Faulty logic texts--there's an explanation I hadn't thought of. Hm.
Anyway, my Webster's says "the proof of a proposition by showing its
opposite to be an obvious falsity or self-contradiction, or the
disproof of a proposition by showing its consequences to be impossible
or absurd."
> You committed the 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' (appeal to ignorance,
> for the non-Latin-speaking) fallacy both times.
If you speak Latin, why didn't you recognize "reductio ad absurdum"?
And this assertion of yours is nonsense. I clearly, stepwise,
demonstrated that, if what you say is true, then the consequences are
a logical impossibility: to wit, that I am dead. It is now up to
you to point out which step was in error.
> Please EXPLAIN how and why gases do not separate, or under what
> circumstances they do or do not separate, and WHY they do or do not
> under those circumstances. Are you claiming that gases never
> separate??
I have neither the time nor the desire to give you a refresher course
in chemistry. Of course gases sometimes separate. What I am saying
is that gases are highly miscible, and that the "separation into
layers" to which you refer--gases nearly the same density forming
pockets of high concentration within a few minutes--will never occur.
> Ja> please try to find English words which describe this
> Ja> situation. Otherwise, you'll end up writing absurdities like
> Ja> "my yield was in vain.")
>
> How was that an absurdity? Did you not understand it? I meant,
> roughly, "my giving you the floor on that topic was of no avail."
Very roughly.
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3137 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 10-03-92 09:19
From: Jamie
To: Maynard
Subject: How explosive is Zyklon-B gas?
Replies: #2881 I clearly, stepwise, demonstrated that, if what you say is true,
> then the consequences are a logical impossibility.... It is now up
> to you to point out which step was in error.
Do you wish to be taken seriously?
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2433 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc.
Date: 10-05-92 23:55
From: Maynard
To: Jamie
Subject: How explosive is Zyklon-B gas?
Replies: #2215 "Address that which you are ignoring,
Ja> if you wish to be taken seriously."
Ja> - Dan 'Maynard' Gannon, 24 Sep 92
Ha, ha.
Ja> Maynard, I can't help but notice that you didn't respond to my last
Ja> message about gases mixing. Allow me to repeat myself:
> I clearly, stepwise, demonstrated that, if what you say is true,
> then the consequences are a logical impossibility.... It is now up
> to you to point out which step was in error.
Your argument was such that gasses do not separate at all. You gave no
information about what determines which gasses separate or not. You merely
speculated in the form of an overgeneralization. Then you contradicted
yourself and said that some gasses separate after all. Now you want me to
point out where you are in error. Oh please. The issue is nil now that
you have contradicted yourself in such a way. And although I do not have
the concrete knowledge about which gasses separate and when, I recognized
your overgeneralization fallacy as such when I first saw it.
You can deceive better than that. I know, I've seen you do it.
Maynard
.... "Could you continue your petty bickering? I find it most intriguing."
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2541 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc. (Received)
Date: 10-07-92 20:04
From: Randy Gibson
To: Maynard
Subject: How explosive is HCN?
Replies: -> #2955
Maynard, it does not make much sense to claim that gases form "layers"
or "pockets" and that this would make the use of HCN gas (released
from Zyklon-B) dangerous to use near the furnaces. The lethal
concentration it about 200 smaller than the minial one which can
result in an explosion.
If gases would form layers, it would mean that if moi lights a
cigar the room will blow up... after all, 19 percent of the
air here is highly explosive O2 (oxygen)!!!
Also, surviving docuemnts mention "gasing cellar" and "gas chambers"
in the Krematoriums. Even if the (weak) claim that these were
delousing rooms is made, the "HCN will explode" claim falls flat
on its face, as the delousing chambers also used HCN.
Randy.
/**********************************************************************/
Message #2955 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc. (Received)
Date: 10-12-92 23:45
From: Maynard
To: Randy Gibson
Subject: How explosive is HCN?
Replies: #2541 Maynard, it does not make much sense to claim that gases form "layers"
RG> or "pockets" and that this would make the use of HCN gas (released
RG> from Zyklon-B) dangerous to use near the furnaces. The lethal
RG> concentration it about 200 smaller than the minial one which can
RG> result in an explosion.
I don't recall claiming that, as much as Holocaust mythologists keep
trying to attack that argument with your sweeping (and false) generalizations
about gas never separating. Anyway, it *is* true: HCN is explosive, and
from what competent chemists have stated, it will separate and rise above
the surrounding air. This is far from being a key argument of the
Holocaust Revisionists, however, and why you keep denying it is beyond me.
Anyway, as Holocaust myth mongers like to ignore, that problem/danger is
nothing compared to the supposed danger of those who allegedly dragged
the allegedly "gassed" corpses out (immediately and without gas masks) of
the "gas chambers" would have suffered, if orthodox Holocuast history were
true. Awareness sure is selective among fanatical believers.
RG> If gases would form layers, it would mean that if moi lights a
RG> cigar the room will blow up... after all, 19 percent of the
RG> air here is highly explosive O2 (oxygen)!!!
Uh-huh. Sure. That is a simple sweeping generalization fallacy, and is
unsubstantiated.
RG> Also, surviving docuemnts mention "gasing cellar" and "gas chambers"
RG> in the Krematoriums. Even if the (weak) claim that these were
RG> delousing rooms is made, the "HCN will explode" claim falls flat
RG> on its face, as the delousing chambers also used HCN.
French professor Robert Faurisson quite some time ago publicly challenged
the French media (and any nation's media, for that matter) to show him ONE
single alleged homicidal gas chamber in ANY of the German concentration
camps, or even to just sketch him a picture of one. They refused!
There were no homicidal gas chambers in the German concentration camps. He,
I, and a quickly growing number of other skeptical, intelligent people are
becoming more and more convinced of the falseity of the momentous 'Gas
Chamber' hoax. Too bad for certain people's (and a certain country called
Israel's) finances, I guess...not to mention their reputations.
By the way, there have been at least THREE professional forensic analysises
of the Auschwitz (and neighboring) alleged "gas chambers" and surrounding
rooms: that of Fred Leuchter, that of the Krakow (Poland) Forensic
Institute, and that of German certified chemist Germar Rudolf. The only
rooms (or rather, chambers) which had an even remotely significant trace
of HCN-based deposits ("Prussian blue") were the TINY chambers which are
acknowledged by everybody (even the most rabid Exterminationists) as having
been used only to de-louse clothing! Interesting, that.
David Irving (the most widely read historian writing in the English language
and recipient of many international awards) will be speaking on October 16th
here in Portland about this matter, despite threats and cancellation
attempts from rabid Holocaustomaniacs. You aren't one of those
Holocaustomaniacs, are you?
Maynard
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
/**********************************************************************/
Message #3333 - Holocaust Revisionism, Etc. (Received)
Date: 10-31-92 21:44
From: Randy Gibson
To: Maynard
Subject: How explosive is HCN (and other answers)
(In answering Maynard's message, I will attach the "M>" sign before his
text)
M>I don't recall claiming that, as much as Holocaust mythologists keep
M>trying to attack that argument with your sweeping (and false)
generalizations
M>about gas never separating. Anyway, it *is* true: HCN is explosive, and
M>from what competent chemists have stated, it will separate and rise above
M>the surrounding air. This is far from being a key argument of the
M>Holocaust Revisionists, however, and why you keep denying it is beyond me.
Well, Holocaust "revisionists" have used to repeat the claim about
the HCN exploding quite often. There is only a limit to how long
you can try and fool people before someone will go to the library
and check, I guess. Since you seem to be backtracking from it, I
won't mention it in further messages.
M>Anyway, as Holocaust myth mongers like to ignore, that problem/danger is
M>nothing compared to the supposed danger of those who allegedly dragged
M>the allegedly "gassed" corpses out (immediately and without gas masks) of
M>the "gas chambers" would have suffered, if orthodox Holocuast history were
M>true. Awareness sure is selective among fanatical believers.
I cannot speak for "myth mongers", but I fail to see what the problem
is. Some of the gas chambers were ventilated. In some of the
others, the men who first entered them had gas masks on. The SS
was aware of the dangers involved in gassing: if you will bother
to read the documents I posted, Wetzel (adviser for Jewish affairs)
writes Reichkommisar Lohse that the gassing process is "not without
its hazards". In a letter from Dr. Becker to SS officer Rauff, he
notes that the men who unloaded the corpses from the "gassing vans"
suffered headaches. In Auschwitz, the surviving members of the
"Sonderkommando" who had to take out the corpses mentioned cases
of difficulty in breathing and pain in the eyes as a result of the
residues of the gas. But then, the SS men didn't care much about
them, now did they?
M>French professor Robert Faurisson quite some time ago publicly challenged
M>the French media (and any nation's media, for that matter) to show him ONE
M>single alleged homicidal gas chamber in ANY of the German concentration
M>camps, or even to just sketch him a picture of one. They refused!
That is strange, After all, there are pictures of these homicidal
gas chambers in books, some of them are still there (although
they have been destroyed by the fleeing SS). Why does Faurisson
have to ask the media for the pictures??
I think the matter is simple. Faurisson used to teach literature
in a French college. He has never been considered anything of
a historian, except for in the neo-Nazi community. He is considered
to be a neo-Nazi lunatic, and I guess no one really cares
about him anymore. There are many loonies out there and they
cannot remain in the spotlight forever.
Randy.
/**********************************************************************/

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.